SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the voters-to-be-prosecuted-for-conspiracy-to-corrupt dept.
Steven I. Weiss writes in The Atlantic how game theory can shed light both on what is happening in Washington and on how the bargaining power of its negotiating parties may evolve over time and comes to the conclusion that hypocrisy is essential to the functioning of Congress - in fact it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption. "Legislators do not pay each other for votes, and every member of a parliament in a democratic society is legally equal to every member," writes Congressman Barney Frank in his new memoir, Frank: A Life in Politics From the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage. For legislators, cooperation is a form of political currency. They act in concert with other legislators, even at the expense of their own beliefs, in order to bank capital or settle accounts: "Because parliamentary bodies have to arrive at binding decisions on the full range of human activity in an atmosphere lacking the structure provided by either money or hierarchy, members have to find ways to bring some order out of what could be chaos," writes Frank. So trading votes, also known as logrolling, is how the business of politics is conducted. "Once you have promised another member that you will do something—vote a certain way, sponsor a particular bill, or conduct a hearing—you are committed to do it." According to Frank legislators have to act in ideologically inconsistent ways in the short run if they want to advance their larger objectives in the long run, as those larger objectives can only be achieved with teamwork. And the other members of their legislative team are only going to play ball with them if they know that they'll take one for the team, that they'll vote for something they don't like because the team needs it.
Game theory sets out conditions under which negotiating parties end up cooperating, and why they sometimes fail to do so. It does so based on analyzing what drives individuals in the majority of bargaining situations: incentives, access to information, initial power conditions, the extent of mutual trust, and accountability enforcement. Instead of seeing political flip-flopping as a necessary evil, Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics. "Legislators who accommodate voter sentiment are denounced as cowardly, and those who defy it are just as fiercely accused of rejecting democratic norms," writes Frank. "I will run for office and I will tell you what I think, and then I will go ahead and do what I think right, and if you don't like what I'm doing, then you can kick me out."
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday July 13 2015, @03:33PM
E.g. In a 2-party state, the smaller party's members basically don't count - the majority party always wins. In a 4-party state, where the proportions are 28%, 26%, 24% and 22%, the 22% never get any say at all, the three major parties decide the result no matter what the 4th party does.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday July 13 2015, @07:03PM
I would contest your assertion in th case of a multi-party situation - in your example *any* three parties can collaborate to renderi the fourth, even the 28%ers, irrelevant. And I would suspect that most of the time you'll get shifting allegiances as different bills are considered, depending on the priorities of the different parties. Especially assuming soe of those priorities conflict, the exact percentages shift at every election, and that a certain percentage of legislators will tend to defect from the party line for one rea$on or another.
Of course parties that only have a small minority will tend to get ignored, but even they may be able to leverage small concessions in the face of a close vote where their votes may tilt the balance of an uncertain outcome.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 14 2015, @01:57PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday July 14 2015, @04:49PM
Why not exclude the 27% instead? If the other three parties block vote then 73% is just as effective as 78%. As long as power is split into a handful of relatively balanced blocks it makes more sense to form shifting alliances based on per-issue priorities. After all it's extremely unlikely that the same three independent parties will actually agree on a desirable outcome for more than a small percentage of legislation. Why spend a bunch of political capital to get Team28's support on today's bill when Team22 already wants most of the same things you do?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:35PM
If the 25 and 26 vote different ways, then whichever way the 27 votes wins. Therefore the result is not independent of which way the 27 vote.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday July 18 2015, @07:01AM
That's one rather contrived example, even before factoring in the fact that we're assuming unanimous voting along party lines.